That’s a really good question, TM. I actually had a lot of concerns about the Book of Abraham for a while—particularly Facsimile #3, notes #2 and #4, which interprets two people that are *obviously* female as “Pharaoh” and “Prince of Pharaoh,” respectively. I kind of bounced along, assuming I’d eventually find the answer, and it wasn’t until years later that I discovered that Egyptologists have identified these two women as the goddess Hathor-Isis and Lady Maat, who are regularly used to represent Pharaoh and his successor, respectively. Furthermore, these two females are pretty much *essential* to any Egyptian coronation scene, which is exactly what Joseph purported this document to represent. This would be a really good example of what my first Institute Director referred to as a “Joseph Smith freebee”—something that Joseph couldn’t possibly have known, but which is now generally accepted as accurate. Anyway, I’ve digressed a bit from the original intent of this question, but I hope that what I’ve written serves as a decent backdrop for what I’m about to write: the main criticism of the Book of Abraham is that the three facsimiles we have are *obviously* not saying what the Book of Abraham says. I hear people say this over and over again, and it always makes me shake my head a very little bit, chuckling out of pity. Any Latter-day Saint worth his salt knows that the facsimiles are not, nor did Joseph ever claim them to be, the source for the Book of Abraham. Joseph stated that the Book of Abraham was longer than the Bible—when unrolled, the scroll went from one end of the Assembly Room in the Nauvoo Temple, and back—and all the parts regarding Priesthood were in red ink. The extant documents are certainly not longer than the Bible—they aren’t even scrolls!—and have no red ink thereon. Thus, we can only conclude that these are *not* the documents described by both Joseph and several of his contemporaries (who invariably mentioned scrolls, even if they hadn’t seen the contents thereof). So what we now have—and the part that Egyptologists tend to take issue with—are the documents that Abraham specifically states were included with his book as *illustrations* of the concepts he was outlining (see Abraham 1:12, http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/1/12#11). Thus, it should come as no surprise that these documents aren’t generally accepted as saying what Joseph Smith claimed they said. Joseph was always happy to leave things to the experts, when experts were available; *his* so-called “translation” of the Abrahamic facsimiles were indicative of *Abraham’s* use of these documents, not the Egyptians’. While there is obviously some overlap (and much more than can be attributed to mere chance, at that), the facsimiles found along with the Book of Abraham are *not* the scripture themselves; they are more akin to a preacher using a picture, to illustrate part of his sermon. The picture doesn’t become scripture just because the preacher cited it, but if someone were to dig up a copy of that sermon in the year A.D. 5000, it would be *highly* beneficial if the preacher had included the picture alongside his sermon, that his future descendants would have some clue of what he was talking about. This also explains the missing parts that Joseph seems to have drawn in, incongruously: while they obviously don’t match other copies of what logic dictates be the same original document, they *do* appropriately convey the concepts that Abraham wanted to convey, which is really all that matters. Does that answer your question?

Their are two versions, Mormon and http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/sound_thinking/comments/the_lost_book_of_abraham/ If you don't want to look don't

RLDS never canonized the BofA like the LDS/Mormons did. In the 'Times and Seasons' in 1842 Joseph in the preface stated 'purporting' to be the writings of Abraham. The BofA contradicts the Biblical account of creation in Genesis (KJV and Inspired Version/JST) 'The Book of Moses' is portions of Genesis in the Inspired Version. Being RLDS, the BofA doesn't affect my faith.